9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Oh, the Trump supporters forced their way into the Capital hill building by threatening to shoot the people inside unless they opened the doors and let them in ?

   Fair enough, I didnt realise that .

I was led to believe that the staff inside the building willingly let the protestors in, I didnt realise the protestors  forced their way in at gunpoint 

If you were led to believe that that only proves that you didn't view the numerous videos showing the insurrectionitss violently attacking the police and pushing their way into the Capitol. And I can't think of any reason why you didn't see them except that the sources you get your news from prefer not to report on that since it would go against the narrative they are trying to promote.

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by placeholder

Lots of interesting comments here, which I have only just got back onto because of some computer problems, and I'm wondering how many of the "mob" that stormed the capital building have been charged/sentenced to a fine or prison term??

 

I ask this because on a BBC newsflash the other day I noticed that one of the rioters had been sentenced to 86 months (or thereabouts) in jail!

 

Surely others must have had sentence passed, but I haven't seen anything related to that – – anyone have any news?

24 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Oh, the Trump supporters forced their way into the Capital hill building by threatening to shoot the people inside unless they opened the doors and let them in ?

   Fair enough, I didnt realise that .

I was led to believe that the staff inside the building willingly let the protestors in, I didnt realise the protestors  forced their way in at gunpoint 

The people at the doors had already seen thousands of protesters violently attack and overwhelm everyone who stood in their way as they stormed the Capitol.  What do you think they would do under the circumstances?

 

Regarding "I was lead to beleive..." perhaps you should examine facts and reach conclusion on your own, rather than let people with agendas lead you to believe nonsense.

19 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Lots of interesting comments here, which I have only just got back onto because of some computer problems, and I'm wondering how many of the "mob" that stormed the capital building have been charged/sentenced to a fine or prison term??

 

I ask this because on a BBC newsflash the other day I noticed that one of the rioters had been sentenced to 86 months (or thereabouts) in jail!

 

Surely others must have had sentence passed, but I haven't seen anything related to that – – anyone have any news?

As of June 15 840 people had been arrested and 185 convicted and sentenced.  https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They opened the buildings outer doors to allow the protestors into the building 

Who is "they"? What is your evidence that these people sided with protestors by opening gates for them? 

29 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes, they do.  However this crazed notion that 'ONLY TRUMP' could act is pure political rhetoric.  The Washington Police Dept is the 6th largest in the country.  

The National Guard is 'PART TIME" not trained in civil law enforcement.  The Washington DC police Dept. is trained and could be immediately mobilized.  It also has "riot gear" 

The total size of the National Guard in Washington DC is 3,400.  Washington DC's police dept is 3,500.  So Trump was derilict but Bowser was not.  Trump could act if it was deemed to be an "insurrection" Bowser could act to quell any civil disturbance.  The National Guard would take hours to mobilize, the police were available immediately.  Now which was was "derilict"   

Hell calling a thousand people protesting an insurrection is laughable.  

Oh and I guess we should have the arrest warrant out for Biden since he repeatedly chooses to not defend the laws of the USA. 



 

There's progress; you acknowledge Trump took an oath to defend the US and its Constitution.  Will you also acknowledge the obvious, that Trump did nothing to fulfill this oath on January 6?

 

Regarding:

 

"this crazed notion that 'ONLY TRUMP' could act is pure political rhetoric"

 

That's political rhetoric that you invented.  No one on this topic has argued that "ONLY TRUMP"  could act.  As I've repeatedly noted, Trump could have called off the rioters with a tweet, but he didn't. 

 

Regarding your attempt to deflect to the border situation; no.

 

 

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by heybruce

29 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

True that is exactly what this strategy is.  No different than the fake Russian Dossier, the Stormy Daniels disclosure and the fake charge of a quid pro quo with the Ukranian President. 

Keep the public's attention focused elsewhere so they don't see the misdeeds you are perpetrating.  

Oh lets keep the news off from the gas prices, inflation, Nancy Pelosi's husbands arrest, the purchase of stock in a chip company before the vote for federal subsidies and of course lets make sure they forget about the "Big Guy" and the Hunter Biden laptop.  Keep your friends in the media pounding a fake insurrection story.  



Funny how when Trump offered National Guard to quell true civil unrest and destruction, this was the response by the "governors" of several states and Pelosi herself. As said, if he had sent in troops immediately they would have January 6 hearings to say he illegally used military troops to quell a civil matter and he should have let local law enforcement handle it. 

As stated by Stephen Vladeck " The insurrection act requires a formal proclamation in order to be invoked.  Mind you he is a liberal and this was in response to Trumps statements that he would employ federal troops to quell the true riots, looting, vandalism, and burning taking place throughout the USA .  Funny how they don't want federal troops sometimes, but do want them others LIBERALS ARE SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.  

Stephen Isaiah Vladeck is the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, where he specializes in national security law, especially with relation to the prosecution of war crimes. 

Allow me to help your focus a little--the title of this topic is:

 

Trump did nothing to stop his supporters as they attacked Congress, threatened Pence, witnesses tell Jan. 6 committee

 

Try to post something that is on-topic.

Just now, heybruce said:

Allow me to help your focus a little--the title of this topic is:

Yes he did nothing ( So What) Was a formal insurection declared.  If not, HE WAS LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM AUTHORIZING TROOPS. 

My posts are right on topic.  He offered troops previously for cival disturances and the Democrat Mayors and Governors rejected it.  

Tell me how is Trump suppose to know this time they 'WANTED" help when his previous offers to provide it, they did not want it. 
 

1 minute ago, Longwood50 said:

Standard?  

According to a law professor a formal declaration of an insurrection must happen prior to troops being dispatched. 

Pelosi sure did not agree with you when violence broke out with buildings burned, people killed, sections of cities being called autonamous zones, she said there is no reason for the U.S. military to be called out.

As said, no matter what Trump did, they would have used it as an excuse to hold hearings to distract.  If he called them out, he would have been a tyrant unlawfully using military against U.S. civilians.  The entire episode lasted all of 6 hours and somehow that calls for millions of dollars in wasted time by Congress 

This is a Wag The Dog production. 

 

"According to a law professor a formal declaration of an insurrection must happen prior to troops being dispatched. "

 

Reference your information unless you want us to think you're making stuff up.  What law professor?  In what context did he make this statement?  Does this mean that every deployment of National Guard in history was illegal?  I don't recall any of them being to put down an insurrection.

 

"no matter what Trump did, they would have used it as an excuse to hold hearings to distract."

 

No, if Trump had sent out a timely tweet telling his supporters to leave the Capitol it would not have been used as an excuse to hold hearings.  If it were, the tweet itself could have been used to discredit the hearings.  Too bad Trump never sent out such a tweet.

 

"

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes he did nothing ( So What) Was a formal insurection declared.  If not, HE WAS LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM AUTHORIZING TROOPS. 

My posts are right on topic.  He offered troops previously for cival disturances and the Democrat Mayors and Governors rejected it.  

Tell me how is Trump suppose to know this time they 'WANTED" help when his previous offers to provide it, they did not want it. 
 

You are remarkably diligent in ignoring the core of my posts.  TRUMP WAS NOT LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM TWEETING TO HIS SUPPORTERS.

 

"So What"?  Wow, where is your head?  The Capitol was under attack.  Congress and the Vice President were being escorted to safety.  Trump could have easily ended the attack with a tweet.  He did nothing.  That is not a "so what" issue, that is a BFD.  He betrayed his oath of office.  He and all those who supporting him are betraying the United States.

 

He also was not legally prohibited from calling out the National Guard.  If that were illegal Mike Pence would be facing charges.  Stop making stuff up.

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes he did nothing ( So What) Was a formal insurection declared.  If not, HE WAS LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM AUTHORIZING TROOPS. 

My posts are right on topic.  He offered troops previously for cival disturances and the Democrat Mayors and Governors rejected it.  

Tell me how is Trump suppose to know this time they 'WANTED" help when his previous offers to provide it, they did not want it. 
 

Because his vice-President was calling in saying that it was an emergency. You know, the guy that Trump thought deserved those "Hang Mike Pence" chants.

And while the President maybe be prohibited from using the national guard in states unless a Proclamation of Insurrection is promulgated (of course, he could issue one) in Washington DC the National Guard reports directly to him since D.C. is a federal entitiy. so no such proclamation is necessary.

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

As of June 15 840 people had been arrested and 185 convicted and sentenced.  https://time.com/6133336/jan-6-capitol-riot-arrests-sentences/

Many thanks for the link "heybruce" and good to know that some of these dumb low lifes have been sentenced, with a few of them getting fairly stiff sentences!

 

Would like to see a lot more of them go to jail and with longer sentences too, but then again it's not a perfect world is it, but one can only hope!

18 hours ago, candide said:

This is section 251 of the insurrection act. There are other sections:

"Section 252 permits deploy­ment in order to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebel­lion” whenever “unlaw­ful obstruc­tions, combin­a­tions, or assemblages, or rebel­lion” make it “imprac­tic­able” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordin­ary course of judi­cial proceed­ings.”

Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the pres­id­ent to use the milit­ary in a state to suppress “any insur­rec­tion, domestic viol­ence, unlaw­ful combin­a­tion, or conspir­acy” that “so hinders the execu­tion of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhab­it­ants are deprived of a consti­tu­tional right and state author­it­ies are unable or unwill­ing to protect that right. Pres­id­ents Dwight D. Eisen­hower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provi­sion to deploy troops to deseg­reg­ate schools in the South after the Supreme Court’s land­mark decision in Brown v. Board of Educa­tion.

The second part of Section 253 permits the pres­id­ent to deploy troops to suppress “any insur­rec­tion, domestic viol­ence, unlaw­ful combin­a­tion, or conspir­acy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execu­tion of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

 

The truth is that Trump did not want to call the N.G., not that he wasn't allowed to.

 

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Standard?  

According to a law professor a formal declaration of an insurrection must happen prior to troops being dispatched. 

Pelosi sure did not agree with you when violence broke out with buildings burned, people killed, sections of cities being called autonamous zones, she said there is no reason for the U.S. military to be called out.

As said, no matter what Trump did, they would have used it as an excuse to hold hearings to distract.  If he called them out, he would have been a tyrant unlawfully using military against U.S. civilians.  The entire episode lasted all of 6 hours and somehow that calls for millions of dollars in wasted time by Congress 

This is a Wag The Dog production. 

 

I already replied to you about it. According to articles 252 and 253, there is no need to have an insurrection declared for the President to call the N.G.

3 minutes ago, candide said:

I already replied to you about it. According to articles 252 and 253, there is no need to have an insurrection declared for the President to call the N.G.

Well a law professor disagrees with you. 

4 minutes ago, candide said:

 

I already replied to you about it. According to articles 252 and 253, there is no need to have an insurrection declared for the President to call the N.G.

It's also worth noting that Trump had options other than calling out the National Guard.  However, as the title of the topic says, Trump did nothing. 
 

Longwood50 is doing all he can to divert attention from the topic; Trump did nothing while the Capitol was under attack.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

No, if Trump had sent out a timely tweet telling his supporters to leave the Capitol it would not have been used as an excuse to hold hearings.  If it were, the tweet itself could have been used to discredit the hearings.  Too bad Trump never sent out such a tweet.

No and he didn't build a wall, dig a moat, put on a tv commercial or hold a parade. He did not put machine guns on the capital building. 

People are held for what they do, not for what they "could" have done.  And where the H is your guarantee that if he had done as you said, that the protestors would have suddenly gone home.  A presumption of something that is pure conjecture. 

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are remarkably diligent in ignoring the core of my posts.  TRUMP WAS NOT LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM TWEETING TO HIS SUPPORTERS.

 

No you are ignoring the core of the issue.  The fact that Trump did not Tweet is not against the law.  

You are presupposing that somehow a Tweet would have stopped the protestors which is pure specualtion on your part.  

Trump could have gone on National TV also.  He also could have machined gunned the protestors.  He did neither.  You charge someone for something they do.  

He did not actively foster the protestors.  And this whole notion of being under attack.  This was not Seattle or Minneapolis with weapons drawn, and buildings on fire.  This entire "protest" and I qualify it as a protest lasted all of 6 hours.  

 

57 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

True that is exactly what this strategy is.  No different than the fake Russian Dossier, the Stormy Daniels disclosure and the fake charge of a quid pro quo with the Ukranian President. 

Keep the public's attention focused elsewhere so they don't see the misdeeds you are perpetrating.  

Oh lets keep the news off from the gas prices, inflation, Nancy Pelosi's husbands arrest, the purchase of stock in a chip company before the vote for federal subsidies and of course lets make sure they forget about the "Big Guy" and the Hunter Biden laptop.  Keep your friends in the media pounding a fake insurrection story.  



Funny how when Trump offered National Guard to quell true civil unrest and destruction, this was the response by the "governors" of several states and Pelosi herself. As said, if he had sent in troops immediately they would have January 6 hearings to say he illegally used military troops to quell a civil matter and he should have let local law enforcement handle it. 

As stated by Stephen Vladeck " The insurrection act requires a formal proclamation in order to be invoked.  Mind you he is a liberal and this was in response to Trumps statements that he would employ federal troops to quell the true riots, looting, vandalism, and burning taking place throughout the USA .  Funny how they don't want federal troops sometimes, but do want them others LIBERALS ARE SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.  

Stephen Isaiah Vladeck is the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, where he specializes in national security law, especially with relation to the prosecution of war crimes. 

You would be more convincing if your posts were not full of fake news.

For example Pelosi's husband did not buy chip shares before the company may receive subsidies, he sold them (at loss).

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

No and he didn't build a wall, dig a moat, put on a tv commercial or hold a parade. He did not put machine guns on the capital building. 

People are held for what they do, not for what they "could" have done.  And where the H is your guarantee that if he had done as you said, that the protestors would have suddenly gone home.  A presumption of something that is pure conjecture. 

As has been explained, doing nothing  is not an option for those who have taken the oath of office. 

 

And as also has been explained, sending a tweet telling his supporters to leave the Capitol would have, at the very least, absolved him of some responsibility for what happened that day.  It's reasonable to assume that it would have taken a lot of steam out of the attack.  But since we can't replay history, we can't say for sure.  Just as you can't say for sure that a tweet would have been used as an excuse for the investigation.

 

Why didn't Trump send a tweet?  Tweeting is one of his favorite activities, along with eating and bragging about his greatness.  The only reason I can think of for not tweeting was that Trump hoped the attack would succeed in preventing the certification of the election

16 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

No you are ignoring the core of the issue.  The fact that Trump did not Tweet is not against the law.  

You are presupposing that somehow a Tweet would have stopped the protestors which is pure specualtion on your part.  

Trump could have gone on National TV also.  He also could have machined gunned the protestors.  He did neither.  You charge someone for something they do.  

He did not actively foster the protestors.  And this whole notion of being under attack.  This was not Seattle or Minneapolis with weapons drawn, and buildings on fire.  This entire "protest" and I qualify it as a protest lasted all of 6 hours.  

 

Trump could have done many things.  He had an obligation to do something.  HE DID NOTHING!  That's not just bad, it's dereliction of duty.  It displays how unfit for office he was and always has been.

 

"He did not actively foster the protestors."

 

BS.  He told them to march on the Capitol and told them they had to fight like hell.  He threw in the word "peacefully" at one point to cover his *ss, but his supporters knew, or thought they knew, what he wanted.  If an attack on the Capitol was not what he wanted, a single tweet could have cleared it up.  But, as mentioned repeatedly, Trump did nothing.

 

If you don't think what happened on January 6 was an attack on the Capitol you are practicing willful ignorance to the extreme.   Get out of you echo chamber and get some real information.

 

 

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by heybruce

21 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Well a law professor disagrees with you. 

It's not "me" personally, It's articles 252 and 253, which are quoted in the article.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253

 

As about your law professor's statement, I cannot reply as I don't know the full statement in context. It's only a short quote, and truncated texts or statements have been regularly used by the right-wing to mislead people. I.e. for claiming that Pelosi called Trump a racist because of the Chinese travel ban.

P.s. As far as I understand, this law professor was not commenting the Capitol events.

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by candide

16 minutes ago, candide said:

It's not "me" personally, It's articles 252 and 253, which are quoted in the article.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253

 

As about your law professor's statement, I cannot reply as I don't know the full statement in context. It's only a short quote, and truncated texts or statements have been regularly used by the right-wing to mislead people. I.e. for claiming that Pelosi called Trump a racist because of the Chinese travel ban.

The tweet from the professor claiming. 

 

"The Insurrection Act requires a formal proclamation in order to be invoked. Trump threatened to use it if state National Guards aren't effective. But vague threats and ambiguous speeches don't cut it. He wants to look tough without actually taking responsibility."

 

Is no longer there, in that string of tweets he made some have already been deleted so that article Longwood50 posted is making a claim based on a deleted tweet

 

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1267628693607911424

 

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by Bkk Brian

President Trump has been sued for violating the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. Better than nothing, as it sure seems like the flimsy evidence thus far does nothing to advance the persecution of Trump. The KKK civil suit stunt shows the desperation and complete lack of criminality in anything reported by the Jan 6 committee, FBI, DOJ, etc., concerning the presidents actions before, during, and after the capitol ruckus. Although it's disappointing to many, there's nothing to see here. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/15/ku-klux-klan-act-civil-trump/

Edited August 7, 20223 yr by michael87

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

No and he didn't build a wall, dig a moat, put on a tv commercial or hold a parade. He did not put machine guns on the capital building. 

People are held for what they do, not for what they "could" have done.  And where the H is your guarantee that if he had done as you said, that the protestors would have suddenly gone home.  A presumption of something that is pure conjecture. 

You're right, it is not about what he could have done but what he should have done.

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh did you get this from a wiretap, his diary or the Steel Dossier. 

Funny how in Seattle the response was totally different when protesters fully armed took possession of a section of the city not for 6 hours but for 22 days

This is just like Covid.  Trump stopped flights from China and he was Xenaphopic.  Later criticized for not doing enough to protect the USA from Covid. 

If Trump had dispatched the National Guard immediately they would have the January 6 hearings on his use of military against a lawful civil protest. 

False. The reason that a Proclamation of Insurrection has to be declared is that ordinarily the National Guard's commander-in-chief is the governor of the state. The proclamation changes  that so their commander-in-chief is now the President. But in Washington D.C. there is no governor. D.C. is a federal zone. The Guard's commander-in-chief is the President. So no need for a Proclamation of Insurrection.

Numerous off-topic posts and replies have been removed.  Please stay on topic.  

 

4 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

No you are ignoring the core of the issue.  The fact that Trump did not Tweet is not against the law.  

You are presupposing that somehow a Tweet would have stopped the protestors which is pure specualtion on your part.  

Trump could have gone on National TV also.  He also could have machined gunned the protestors.  He did neither.  You charge someone for something they do.  

He did not actively foster the protestors.  And this whole notion of being under attack.  This was not Seattle or Minneapolis with weapons drawn, and buildings on fire.  This entire "protest" and I qualify it as a protest lasted all of 6 hours.  

 

Rubbish. Trump, as CIC,  had a legal obligation to do what he could to reduce violence and restore order to the Capitol proceedings. He failed in that duty.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rubbish. Trump, as CIC,  had a legal obligation to do what he could to reduce violence and restore order to the Capitol proceedings. He failed in that duty.

What is that "legal obligation " ?

Which law stats that ?

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is that "legal obligation " ?

Which law stats that ?

So you believe he was entitled to vicariously do nothing when people were being killed and injured in his name?

I think some of the Trump apologists are missing the point.  Doing nothing may be an option for a casual bystander but when it is your job to do something, then you are responsible.  Trump was elected and serving as President, it was his job to do something.   It's not different than the police officers who did nothing to stop Chauvin from his actions toward George Floyd.  They got charged and convicted for doing nothing because it was their job to do something.   

 

He was the Commander-in-Chief, he had requested 10,000 National Guard troops on duty.  He did not call them in to protect the capitol.  He's as guilty as the George Floyd officers if not more so.  He's in the same category as the Uvalde police.